MisterE
-
Posts
2,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by MisterE
-
the talk about disinfo is funny to me, because its been pretty firmly established that rich has told some fibs and stretched the truth to create this mythos around himself, yet for some reason he does these interviews, says more outrageous things, and it seems like maybe half the people here just take him at face value on all of them, as if he didn't have that reputation or somehow things are different now. then you have the people who say things like 'its easy to see when hes lying and when he's being honest'. no. it isn't. nobody knows unless you do. and you don't.
-
i like versions best they should re-release it so everyone has a chance to own it legit at least as digitals on bleep or something
-
im thinking about buying more copies so i can lay nude in a grassy field and cover my body with syro
-
yeah. but then, rich himself openly and blatantly brags about pirating software even tho hes rich and could surely afford just about anything he wanted
-
as much frowning down as there was on the whole topic of clipping/limiting/mastering, it was a helluva lot more on topic (syro) than anything that's happened since
-
the magazine cover is pretty rad... kinda wish that was the album cover tbh
-
oh right i forgot to try to figure out his place in the whole deal but i guess you about summed it up
-
ok now the wait is really starting to get to me. i'm sure i can stay strong until release day, but if/when people start going on about leaks..... fuuuuuuuuuu
-
the conspiratorial part of me would say that syro coming out so fast actually makes me wonder if those people who were saying that the CW LP thing was planned out as promotion for a new album, might've on some level been right. because 6 months ago did put him handing syro to warp at just before the CWLP went for sale... but, problems with this- a) just putting the CWLP up for sale somewhere wouldn't itself ensure that some obsessive fan forum website would come up with the idea to do a kickstarter, then that they'd actually do it b) which means at least joyrex would've had to have been involved, if not a few posters here who helped 'come up with the idea' which joyrex then ran with i dont know how much i care about any of this though, but i think its a pretty small amount. just seems a tiny bit fishy. prob coincidence. i guess just a coincidence im sure. that after however many years since tuss, he's finishing and handing an album to warp within a months time of a rare unreleased record of his going up for sale then turns into a kickstarter which does indeed get him some media attention. a pretty big coincidence, yes. but still. OR maybe some things behind the scenes of how that happened couldve been connected in ways that don't exactly amount to the conspiracy as stated above. maybe his friend asking him for permission to put the record up for sale prompted him to give warp a new record since he knew CWLP's leaking was inevitable. but again i dont really CARE about the particulars, just kind of interesting to try to mentally unravel i guess
-
i mean yeah i agree with that. i think maybe he had it mastered that way on purpose for whatever reason. i think skibby had a point with how the bass reacts to the compression/limiting that gives it a big sound, maybe having been part of that plan. i like the way the track sounds. but i think it makes just as much sense for other people who express a bit of concern about extreme compression to do that, just as rich himself did in that interview
-
no you havent offended me it just seemed like you were trying to say something and i asked for clarification is all
-
anyone who it applies to i just dont get the hostility and ridicule towards people for doing the same thing as everyone else at this forum does on a regular basis, which is nitpick details obsessively. especially when the detail is just as relevant to the topic of this album as anything else thats been discussed. but i think i laid it out pretty clear in that post.
-
whats that even supposed to mean? you post that like its got some point behind it. can you put the supposed point into words?
-
why is it ok to endlessly discuss and drag out every possibly even slightly related to this album topic, across several threads and this one which is almost 200 pages now, for an album that still isn't out yet, but not ok to talk about the mastering? which, correct me if i'm wrong here, IS a part of the record... ? just like all the other stuff that is apparently ok to obsess over and nitpick, such as the packaging, the gear used, production, timeline, relation to previous stuff, relation to other artists, mixing, etc etc etc etc. the mastering is a part of the album too. but for some reason if you talk about THAT, some people become bitches. seriously, youre in a thread thats almost 200 pages for an album that isn't out yet, and youre complaining because some other people are obsessing over a detail. in a thread thats 200 pages of obsession. at a forum thats a got a million pages of obsession on it. and youre here because of your own obsessions and your posts here contain numerous obsessions. so to ludds 'you fucking people', i'd say dude look at your fucking post count and how long youve been here and step back and reconsider your assertion that you arent 'fucking people' yourself. and this is all besides the fact of the post earlier showing that the man himself has expressed the same exact type of concerns that people are ironically stepping in to defend him from. which just makes the whole thing a bit next level derpy
-
i think what you could say is that in that case, your cd player was probably clipping the signal as it tried to play it back, which comes down to the cd player and its own limitations. but the recording you were playing wasn't itself clipped (unless it was, which it would then sound clipped anywhere if that was the case)
-
@JE well i havent actually looked at it myself because i don't have a wav of it yet, but i dont know if i would outright call just going to 0db clipping. it became a standard to stop just below that but it was supposed to be because some cd players had problems with signals that went all the way up to 0db (maybe you said something like that already? cant remember). but i wouldn't call something 'clipped' unless i could actually see the top of the peaks literally 'clipped' off, and there would be something like a straight/flat line going across, until the signal comes back down on the other side of the peak. so the thing about, if the signal is just going up to 0, but say maybe thats just because of the wave being normalized to 0db or limited at 0db, but its not actually having its tops chopped off, i would just say they limited at 0db instead of the usual practice of stopping just before that, which isn't a hardfast rule but more of a standard. if its actually clipped, and im not an expert on this, but they do that because clipping allows them to get the signal louder, just like limiting does, but they both have different results. a limiter has to recover, determined by the release time, so the level is still being held down for a bit even after the signal goes below the limit/threshold. so stuff thats just right after that limited peak will now be quieter than it was before (can be heard as what some people call 'pumping'), unless you use a super fast release. but super fast releases lead to other problems/distortions. on the other hand, if you clip the tops of the peaks, there is no release time, so as soon as the signal comes back below the point of clipping, its pretty much untouched. the peak is gone, but everything else is the same. no pumping or any of those other side effects of limiters to worry about. some mastering guys found that different converters clip the signal in different sounding ways, some less harsh than others, with some supposedly even sounding a bit 'nice' if just a db or so is clipped off this way. so, i think what mastering guys do now, is multiple passes of various methods of gradually chipping away at the dynamic range, squashing it a few dbs at a time. they'll maybe use a regular compressor first, then some clipping of peaks then some limiting. or maybe theyd do the limiting first then the clipping, im not sure if there would be a 'best' order to do it in. but each step would give them maybe a db or two or 3 of peak reduction. which adds up and supposedly sounds better than just using one tool to do it all in one go. which they will tell you is why taking L2 to your mix for 6+ db of peak reduction won't sound as good as what they do. anyway there are lots of sometimes interesting discussions about intentionally clipping masters using a/d converters over at gearslutz, with some of the posts being actual mastering engineers.
-
i would agree that something being squashed flat, whether its actually clipping or just limited to death, it's going to sound like shit. but looking at that waveform, it doesn't look close to the high end of extreme. it sounded ok to me. maybe i would have liked it a bit more if there were a few db more of dynamics for the drums to punch out above the rest of the mix, but it is what it is and there's a lot to like about it. maybe the vinyl got a different mastering process with less limiting, maybe not. im not too bothered tho because it just didn't sound that extreme to me.
-
some of you guys need to stop using the word clipping so interchangeably with limiting, or just assuming that when you look at a track that has been limited, that what you're seeing is clipping. just about every track that gets released on a professional level is going to have some limiting somewhere, and of course pretty much all or most of the mainstream stuff on big labels uses a lot of it. but if any time a limiter was used meant that something clipped, then pretty much every single piece of music you listen to is clipped. they aren't the same thing. they are two totally different things. yes they are related in some ways, but not the same. in fact, the basic idea behind limiting is to PREVENT clipping. when you look at a waveform like that, all you can say is 'the dynamics have been reduced' and the peaks are being stopped from going beyond a point around 0db. that can be accomplished a few ways, limiting being one of them, but yeah sometimes mastering guys will intentionally do things like clip their A/D converters to lob maybe the top dB or so off of the peaks. they'd probably do that in combination with limiting. some converters are known to supposedly sound good when clipping like that. there are different types of clipping or at least different results. some is 'softer' (bit more rounded edges), some is just perfectly flat. a 16bit wav cant actually have anything going over 0db recorded in that wav. which is why this whole thing goes on. but when you see a waveform like that with the whole track on display, all you know is that there is almost surely limiting, and the signal may or may not have also been clipped in the mastering process. limiting is compression which means the volume level gets dropped as the signal is about to exceed the limit, so limiting prevents clipping, and if you zoom in horizontally on a track you limit with something like waves l2, even with extreme limiting, you will see that the waveform goes up close to 0db (or wherever you set the limit) but then curves back down, but it always stays 'rounded', and looks somewhat like the rest of the waveform. up close it still looks kind of 'natural', which is due to some crazy algorithms in how those limiters work. obviously you can still hear them affecting the sound, but it's NOT the same thing as clipping. if you zoom in on a clipped signal, its going to be like a flat line going across where that peak tried to go above a point and coudln't due to limitations of digital systems. so instead it just stays 'pegged' at that maximum allowed point, and you see a flat line. that causes distortion. yeah extreme limiting causes distortion too, but the signal is typically kept rounded and more natural looking with the much used big name limiters out there. theres a pretty huge difference between that and a signal just being completely chopped off. i think something like l2 tries to kind of 'mirror' the waveform back down below the limit, to retain it's basic structure. with clipping, that musical information that was happening where the signal tried to cross that point and got flattened, that information is just gone. its totally gone forever. and its sounds a lot different. just showing the entire track zoomed out horizontally like that, you have absolutely no idea that there is significant 'clipping' on that track. zoom in, look for flat lines where peaks used to be, then talk about clipping. limiting ≠ clipping
-
Million Dollar Extreme's Youtube account got pulled down
MisterE replied to gmanyo's topic in General Banter
im losing faith! -
that gif = humorous
-
klop you shapeshiftin name-changin mook we never forget
-
i expect it to be 'pretty deece'
-
lol at the idea of rdj being like willy wonka. it just gets funnier the more you think about it
-
cds take up space. wtf am i supposed to do with a whole drawer full of cds
-
its the best one, imo
